HIERARCHY OF ANALYSIS

 

HIERARCHY OF ANALYSIS

Food undergoes a multi-stage journey from production, processing, distribution, and retail shops or restaurants before it reaches your plate. Throughout this process, food may become unsafe due to various factors, with the most used terms for such issues being 'contamination' and 'adulteration.' Both contamination and adulteration involve the presence of substances unintended in the food product, but the key distinction lies in their intent.

Contamination is typically unintentional and can result from natural causes, such as the uptake of heavy metals from the soil by plants, or from lapses in quality control during food production, like the introduction of foreign materials like hair or glass.

Adulteration, on the other hand, is often economically driven, involving the deliberate substitution or dilution of high-quality ingredients with cheaper alternatives. For example, diluting milk with water to increase its volume. Adulteration may not always lead to immediate health risks, but it invariably introduces unknown hazards and associated risks to the food product.

Food spoilage occurs when there is an undesirable alteration in the food's normal characteristics, affecting its smell, taste, texture, or appearance. Bacteria, molds, and yeasts are common culprits of spoilage, as seen in the appearance of green fuzzy patches on bread, for instance.

Detecting unsafe, adulterated, or spoiled food can be accomplished using our senses, including sight, smell, touch, and hearing. For example, fuzzy and discoloured mold growth, a soft and mushy texture, and a foul odor are signs of spoilage in fruits and vegetables. In canned foods, bulging cans, strong odors upon opening, gas or spurting liquids, and cloudy, mushy food are indicative of spoilage. Sensory examination can also uncover common adulterants, such as visually identifying the addition of papaya seeds to black pepper.

However, it's important to note that not all unsafe or adulterated foods may exhibit poor quality, making it necessary to conduct different levels of analysis to distinguish between safe and unsafe food. Basic analysis can be performed at home or in a school laboratory using minimal equipment, chemicals, and labware. These tests often indicate the presence or absence of negative attributes in a food sample.

Intermediate tests require slightly more advanced equipment and skills and provide quantitative information, revealing the quantity of specific attributes in a food sample. For example, the "Food Safety on Wheels" mobile lab can perform 23 tests to detect adulteration in milk and milk products, including the values of Fat, Solids-Not-Fat, Protein, and the detection of common adulterants.

Advanced analysis, conducted in specialized laboratories by highly skilled technicians using state-of-the-art equipment, is necessary to detect very low levels of negative and positive attributes or obtain specific information about a food's origin. Techniques like inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometry (ICP-MS) can detect heavy metal contaminants, while High Performance Liquid Chromatography (HPLC) is used to analyse organic compounds. Gas Chromatography/Mass Spectrometry (GC/MS) separates and identifies chemical mixtures at the molecular level, while Liquid Chromatography-Mass Spectrometry (LC/MS) combines the separating power of HPLC with mass spectrometry for analysis.

In summary, food safety and quality assessment can be performed at various levels of analysis, ranging from basic sensory examination to advanced laboratory techniques, to ensure the safety and integrity of our food supply.

Reference : fssai

 

Aspartame Hazard - Non-Sugar Sweetener

The World Health Organization (WHO), the Joint Expert Committee on Food Additives (JECFA), and the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) have all released assessments of the non-sugar sweetener aspartame's effects on human health today. IARC classified aspartame as probably carcinogenic to humans (IARC Group 2B) due to "limited evidence" for its carcinogenicity in humans, while JECFA reiterated the recommended daily consumption of 40 mg/kg body weight.

Since the 1980s, diet drinks, chewing gum, gelatin, ice cream, dairy goods including yogurt and morning cereal, toothpaste, and pharmaceuticals like cough drops and chewable vitamins have all employed aspartame, an artificial (chemical) sweetener.

"One of the biggest causes of death worldwide is cancer. Cancer claims the lives of 1 in 6 people each year. In an effort to lower these figures and the human toll, science is constantly developing to evaluate potential beginning or facilitating factors of cancer, according to Dr. Francesco Branca, Director of the Department of Nutrition and Food Safety, WHO. "While safety is not a major concern at the doses that are commonly used," the assessments of aspartame have shown, "potential effects have been described that need to be investigated by more and better studies."

To evaluate the potential carcinogenic risk and other health hazards connected with aspartame intake, the two organizations carried out separate but complementary reviews. IARC had never assessed aspartame before, although JECFA has done so three times.

Both analyses recognized gaps in the evidence for cancer (and other health impacts) after reading the pertinent scientific literature.

A kind of liver cancer called hepatocellular carcinoma, for which there is particular evidence, led the IARC to classify aspartame as probably carcinogenic to humans (Group 2B). Additionally, there was scant evidence of cancer in research animals and scant information regarding potential cancer-causing pathways.

JECFA came to the conclusion that there was insufficient evidence to justify changing the previously defined recommended daily intake (ADI) for aspartame, which is 0 to 40 mg/kg body weight. Therefore, the committee reiterated that it is safe for a person to ingest up to this daily limit. For instance, an adult weighing 70 kg would need to consume more than 9–14 cans of diet soft drinks per day, assuming no further intake from other food sources, to go above the permissible daily intake.

By identifying an agent's particular characteristics and potential for harm, such as cancer, the IARC's hazard identifications are the first important step in understanding the carcinogenicity of an agent. The strength of the scientific evidence supporting a substance's ability to cause human cancer is reflected in IARC classifications, but not the likelihood that a person would get cancer at a certain exposure level. All exposure categories (such as food and occupational) are taken into account during the IARC hazard evaluation. The third highest level of the four categories of the strength-of-evidence classification, Group 2B, is typically employed when there is either weak but not conclusive evidence for cancer in humans or strong but not both conclusive evidence for cancer in experimental animals.

Dr. Mary Schubauer-Berigan of the IARC Monographs program said, "The findings of limited evidence of carcinogenicity in humans and animals, and of limited mechanistic evidence on how carcinogenicity may occur, underscore the need for more research to clarify whether consumption of aspartame poses a carcinogenic hazard."

JECFA's risk assessments establish the likelihood that a certain form of harm, such as cancer, may manifest under particular circumstances and exposure levels. JECFA frequently considers IARC categories while making decisions.

According to Dr. Moez Sanaa, WHO's Head of the Standards and Scientific Advice on Food and Nutrition Unit, "JECFA also considered the evidence on cancer risk, in animal and human studies, and concluded that the evidence of an association between aspartame consumption and cancer in humans is not convincing." "In the present cohorts, we need better research with longer follow-up and repeated dietary questionnaires. Randomized controlled trials are required, as well as investigations into the molecular processes involved in the regulation of insulin, metabolic syndrome, and diabetes, particularly in relation to carcinogenicity.

Based on scientific data gathered from a variety of sources, including peer-reviewed papers, government reports, and studies carried out for regulatory purposes, the IARC and JECFA evaluated the effects of aspartame. Both committees have taken procedures to assure the independence and trustworthiness of their assessments, which have been verified by independent experts who have evaluated the studies.

IARC and WHO will continue to keep an eye on new information and support independent research teams in their efforts to do more studies on the potential link between aspartame exposure and consumer health impacts.

Reference: WHO

Post-processing control strategies for STEC in beef

The intended use of raw beef is an important factor to consider in the selection

and implementation of methods for STEC control. If the product is not intended

to remain intact, STEC present on the exterior of meat may be internalized during

the non-intact production process, such as grinding and mechanical tenderization.

In such cases, cooking to a rare or medium-rare internal temperature may not

be sufficient to destroy STEC throughout the product. It is critical, therefore, that

primal, sub-primal, and other cuts intended to be non-intact products should be

treated by interventions to reduce or eliminate STEC.

During carcass fabrication, the carcass is broken down into consumer portions,

which includes additional product preparation and handling. All these steps

increase the surface area of the product, the likelihood of contamination spread is

great, therefore the application of inventions to reduce STEC at fabrication can be

impactful.

During mechanical tenderization of meats, the needles or blades used in the process

of tenderization can physically transfer foodborne pathogens from the surface into

the interior of the beef cuts. This has prompted the development of interventions

that can reduce the internalization of surface STEC (Currie et al., 2019). Some nations

have required registered plants to affix a label (Mechanically Tenderized Beef

[MTB]) to products and to include safe cooking instructions for the consumers,

stating “Cook to a minimum internal temperature of 63 °C” (Health Canada, 2014).

Raw ground beef and ground beef-based products (e.g. hamburger patties), pose a

higher risk to human health than intact beef because of its greater contact surface

and the higher degree of handling and processing involved with production.

During the mincing/grinding process, microbial transfer from the external surfaces

into the mass of the ground beef is likely to occur; therefore, it is important to

implement GHP, GMP, and HACCP principles as well as intervention measures

throughout the ground beef production chain to minimize STEC exposure and

contamination. In several nations, all beef used in grinding is required to be tested

for contamination by specific STEC serotypes (USDA, 2016, 2017).

Despite all the control measures applied at the previous stages of production,

contamination of STEC in ground beef can still be detected, albeit mostly at low

concentration. This remains a critical issue, however, because of the low infectious

dose of STEC, hence interventions still need to be applied at all stages of ground

beef production, product manufacturing, packaging, and distribution.

Since ground beef is perishable, it is important to apply control measures

properly during the transport and storage of the carcasses/beef cuts before grinding.

Maintaining temperature (< 7 °C) is an important parameter that should be

controlled throughout the ground beef production chain to reduce the growth of

STEC through distribution, retail sale, and until the product reaches the consumer

(Duffy et al., 2005). Packaging processes, including interventions, for ground/

minced products are also critical for ensuring STEC control. Product labels should

contain sufficient information about interventions applied, while also guiding the

purchaser with safe handling and preparation guidelines (e.g. use-by dates and the

need for thorough cooking on the label).

Although the implementation of the interventions in the post-processing phase are

mostly to improve microbial safety of fresh ground beef, other essential parameters

must also be considered, such as the extension of product shelf-life and consumer

acceptance (e.g. maintenance of sensory qualities without altering organoleptic

characteristics; inclusion of package labeling regarding the treatment, guidance

for safe handling).

The antimicrobial interventions implemented throughout the beef production

the chain can vary depending on the country’s regulations and the volume of production

as well as the destination of the product (e.g. local consumption vs export market).

Intervention strategies used in post-processing should be safe and suitable to be

broadly approved by the regulations of different nations.

U-Tech International offers HACCP Level 1,2, 3, and 4 programs to learn about the methodology for controlling biological, chemical, and allergen hazards and implementation of the HACCP plan in your food establishment, HACCP Audit, Training, etc...

U-Tech International offers an Industrial Microbiological Techniques program to learn to Identify and confirm the biological hazards (pathogens listed above ) from Food, Water, and Cosmetics products based on ISO, BAM, and IS, International standard methods.

For Joining the program Please visit our website: https://uyirtech.com/online-programs

WhatsApp: https://wa.me/919943712383

Thank you!!!!

Reference: Control measures for Shiga toxin-producing Escherichia coli (STEC) associated with meat and dairy products Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations World Health Organization

Wheat Flour Fortified With Iron, Folic Acid, and Vitamin B12

 

Advantages of Fortifying Wheat Flour

(1) Wheat flour fortification is a safe and effective means of improving public health.

(2) Fortified wheat flour is an excellent vehicle for adding nutrients to the diet as wheat flour is commonly consumed by everyone.

(3) Cost-effective method to prevent nutritional deficiencies.

(4) During the milling of wheat, nutrient losses take place. Fortification helps in adding back these nutrients.

(5) When added to wheat flour, Iron, Folic acid, and Vitamin B12 are essential for fighting anemia and blood formation.

Method

The first step is designing the micronutrient premix. A premix contains a uniform mixture of the desired nutrients in the required amounts, which will help in the uniform distribution of the fortificants in the flour. The designed micronutrient premix is accurately metered through a volumetric feeder into the flour. These feeders consist of a rotating feed screw that is driven by a motor, the speed of which can be adjusted to modify the rate of addition of the premix. These feeders either make use of gravity or a pneumatic system to dispense the premix into the flour.

In order to achieve uniform distribution of the fortificants in the flour, the feeders must be placed at a centralized location with respect to the conveyor carrying the flour. A centrally located feeder will ensure that there will be sufficient time provided for the fortificants to mix before the flour is collected and sent for packaging and storage. The plant should have the right mixers, feeders, and quality control equipment so as to ensure that the fortified flour has effective levels of the desired fortificants present in the finished product.

The process flowchart 

Reference: fssai

Antifungal activity of potential probiotic Limosilactobacillus fermentum strains against toxigenic aflatoxin-producing aspergilli

Antifungal activity of potential probiotic strains against Aspergillus flavus and Aspergillus niger is shown in Figure. (A) A. flavus covered the entire plate in the absence of probiotics. (B) The potential probiotics ABRIIFBI-6 and ABRIIFBI-7 were able to inhibit the growth of A. flavus, whereas PTCC 1745, used as a control. (C) A. niger covered the entire plate in the absence of probiotics. (D) The potential probiotic ABRIIFBI-6 was able to inhibit the growth of A. niger similarly to A. flavus, but ABRIIFBI-7 only slightly inhibit the growth of A. niger. Furthermore, strain PTCC 1745, used as a control.

See full Article :